Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
It appears that you may be misusing the word "victims".
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Kyle Rittenhouse found not guilty on all charges
- Thread starter It Aint Necessarily So
- Start date
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Which is why that information was not allowed in the trial. It does help in one's emotional thoughts. The jury after what appears to be very careful deliberation decided that the prosecutor did not make his case that it was not self defense.
I believe that protecting the righteous defense of your life from evil actors intent on harming you is the express purpose of self-defense laws.
Guitar's Cry
Disciple of Pan
Your post was based on the victims seeking legal action, so by labeling them according to past criminal records, you appear to be suggesting that a court of law should take that into account, despite the ideal of justice being blind to that.
No one has the right(moral justification) to kill a human being . We have the right to defend ourselves.
Kooky
Freedom from Sanity
I find it puzzling why you would specify "evil actors" here. Self defense laws, as far as I can tell, are intended to justify lethal response to any potential threat, not just people who have been confirmed to lack moral fibre.
Kooky
Freedom from Sanity
In the case of Rittenhouse, those two statements stand in direct contradiction.
So which do you consider the superior clause - the one that justifies killing, or the one that rejects any justification for killing?
In the Rittenhouse case I believe he was justified to defend himself. Responsibility of those deaths falls on the attackers.
Last edited:
If you drew your weapon in response to an active shooter who had already killed two people, would the shooter be justified in shooting you?
Guitar's Cry
Disciple of Pan
The biggest problem I have with the whole thing is that it never would have occurred if Kyle wasn't carrying a rifle. I am purposely staying out of debating the court ruling because to me it was just a tragic comedy of really stupid errors.
Self-defense doesn't start with a gun. Self-defense starts with being aware of your environment, understanding the situation, and managing your behavior to avoid physical confrontation.
Kyle (likely because he was a 17 year old boy) apparently skipped these and made himself a target.
Was it self-defense? Likely. But he put himself in that situation. Is he completely to blame? No. A lot of people did stupid things. Like allowing a 17 year old boy to carry a rifle in an area of civil unrest.
A statement on the verdict from the NAACP:
NAACP President & CEO, Derrick Johnson, Releases Statement on Not Guilty Verdict in Kyle Rittenhouse
Interesting statement. I agree that the US is a white supremacist hellscape but I don't think that is the chief cause of the verdict of this case.
Curious where you’re from and what you know to paint an entire country in such broad strokes.
I'm from the USA, never left yet. I know what I see just as surely as I can see grass is green.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Sorry but Rittenhouse did not meet the definition of an "active shooter" as used by the police. Using a weapon in self defense does not make one an active shooter. The third person shot knew that he was not trying to shoot someone, he knew that he was running away. He was part of the pack that was chasing him.
Do you know why the Arbery trial verdict is likely to be the opposite? In that case the victim was running away when he was accosted by people with guns. That he very well may have been the thief that had been hitting the area does not matter. He was not a threat to anyone. The Arbery's were like the crowd chasing down Rittenhouse. I predict a guilty verdict for them.
I wasn't aware that Grosskreutz was a police officer.
And you're sure that Grosskreutz believed that Rittenhouse shot both people in self-defense?
You mean part of the group pursuing a fleeing shooter?
Even someone shooting another person in self-defense should expect to be disarmed, detained, and handed over to the police. It was not reasonable for Rittenhouse to expect that he could just walk away, even if he thought that he was justified shooting Rosenbaum.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
I wasn't aware that Grosskreutz was a police officer.
I never claimed or implied that he was. Are you now claiming that he was in error? I am sorry, but being in error does not excuse threatening someone else with a gun. He still had no just complaint for getting his bicep shot off. You appear to be willing to excuse ignorant gun violence for one while trying to prosecute justified gun violence by another.
Now you are just repeating your former mistake.
You are forgetting that this was an armed mob that was part of a riot, not a protest, that was chasing after someone that defended himself from another rioter. You keep forgetting cogent facts.
Let me know when you're ready to approach this discussion honestly.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
LOL!! I am more justified in saying that to you.
You are clutching at straws. It was an appropriate verdict. It was self defense against a group of violent rioters.
wandering peacefully
Which way to the woods?
It portends that anyone who wants can carry around semi automatic weapons at any public gathering and be able to decide what constitutes danger and when it is reasonable to use deadly force with zero training unlike police who have many hundreds of hours of training and still can't get it right some times. It means don't go to demonstrations in states where any idiot can walk around in public waving an AR-15, kill two people and walk off scott free. No gun control anywhere, anytime for any reason. That's the new Merica.